Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BOMBAY CITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R. H. PANDI MANAGING TRUSTEESOF TRUST, BOMBAY
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1974
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
CITATION:
1974 AIR 2269 1975 SCR (2) 7
1974 SCC (2) 627
CITATOR INFO :
APR 1989 SC1298 (5,6,8)
ACT:
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, 0.6 r.2(14).- Whether Chamber
Judge can dispose of applications for condonation of delay
in filing Petitions of appeal.
HEADNOTE:
Order 6, Rule 2(14) provides that the powers of the Court in
relation to applications for enlargement or abridgement of
time except where the time is fixed by the Court or relates
to deposit of security and except applications for
condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions, may
be exercised by a single Judge sitting in Chambers.
On the question whether applications for condonation of
delay in filing petitions ofappeal should be heard only by
the Court which can dismiss the appeal andnot by the
Judge, in Chambers, because, the refusal of such an
applicationwill amount to dismissal of an appeal by the
Judge in Chambers,
HELD : The words ’Enlargement or abridgement of time in 0.6
r. 2(14) of the Rules, take in applications for enlargement
of time appointed by the Rules. A petition of appeal is
required under Order 15 of the Rules to be presented within
60 days from the grant of certificate of fitness, and under
Order 46, r. 3 of Rules, the Supreme Court, on application
may enlarge and abridge the time appointed by these rules
for doing any act etc. Therefore, a Chamber Judge may
exercise the powers of the Court in relation to any
application for condonation of delay in filing a petition of
appeal. In fact, but for the exception in the Rule even
applications for condonation of delay in filing special
leave petitions would be included therein. Further, this
practice of the Chamber Judge hearing applications for
condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal within
the time appointed by the Supreme Court Rules has been
followed ever since 1966. Where a practice has existed it
is convenient to adhere to it, because, the practice of the
Court is the law of the Court. [8H-9C]
Cocker v. Tempest 7 M. & W. 502, referred to.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 895 to 897
of 1973.
Appeals from the Judgment & Order dated the 9th April, 1970
of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref. No. 105 of 1963.
Civil Appeals Nos. 898 to 899, of 1973
Appeals from the Judgment & Order dated the 17th/18th March,
1970 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref. No. 94 of 1963.
Civil Appeal No. 2054 of 1971.
Appeal from the judgment & Decree dated the 14th September,
1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 435 of 1962.
F.S. Nariman, Addl. Solicitor General, and R. N.
Sachthey, for the appellants (In CAs. Nos. 895-899/73) and
for Attorney General.
A.V. Rangam and A. Subhashini, for the appellant (In CA.
No. 2054/71).
8
P.C. Bhartari K. J. Johsn and J. B. Dadachanji, for the
respondents (In CAs. Nos. 895-899).
V. Srinivasan & Lily Thomas, for respondent No. 2 (In CA.
No. 2054/71).
A. K. Sen, and Janardan Sharma, for Sup. Ct. Bar Assn.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C. J.-In these matters a question arises as to whether
applications for condonation of delay in filing petition of
appeal can b. heard by the Judge in Chambers. An argument
is advanced before the Hon’ble Judge in Chambers that if an
application for condonation of delay is refused by the Judge
in Chambers it will amount to dismissal of the appeal by the
Judge in Chambers. Therefore, it is said that these
applications should be heard by the Court which alone call
dismiss an appeal.
Notices were given to the Attorney General and the Bar Asso-
ciation because it was said that the existing practice of
posting applications for condonation of delay in filing
petition of appeal before the Judge in Chambers should be
discontinued and such applications should be listed before
the Court.
The relevant rule is Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme
Court Rules. Order VI Rule 2 states that the powers of the
Court in relation to matters enumerated there may be
exercised by a Single Judge sitting in Chambers. Clause
(14) reads "Applications for enlargement or abridgement of
time except where the time is fixed by the Court or relates
to deposit of security and except applications for con-
donation of delay in filing special leave petitions". Under
the Rules it follows that all applications- for enlargement
or abridgement of time except the three cases mentioned in
Order VI rule 2(14) are heard by the Judge in Chambers. An
important exception is application for condonation of delay
in filing special leave petitions.
Order XLVII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules states
that the Court may enlarge or abridge any time appointed
by these rules or fixed by any order enlarging time, for
doing any act of taking proceedings, upon such terms (if
any) as the justice of the case may require, and any
enlargement may be ordered, although the application
therefore is not made until after the expiration of the time
appointed or allowed. A petition of appeal is required under
Order XV of the Rules of this Court to be presented within
60 days from the grant of certificate of fitness. The time
to present the petition of appeal is fixed by the Rules of
this Court. Therefore Order XLVII Rule 3 will apply with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
regard to enlargement for abridgement of any time appointed
by the Rules for doing any act,
Order VI Rule 2(14) speaks of applications for enlargement
or abridgement of time. Here the words "enlargement or
abridgement of time" take in applications for enlargement of
time appointed by the Rules. The significant feature in the
Rules is that applications for condonation of delay in
filing special leave petitions are excepted from
9
the business of a Chamber Judge. The natural presumption is
that but for the exception the Rule would have included also
applications for condonation of delay in filing special
leave petitions. Any application for condonation of delay
in filing petition of appeal is therefore included in
applications for enlargement or abridgement of time.
This practice of the Chamber Judge hearing applications for
condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal within
the time appointed by the Rules of this Court has been
followed ever since 1966. Cursus curiae est lex curiae. The
practice of the Court is the law of the Court. See Broom’s
Legal Maxims at p. 82. Where a practice has existed it is
convenient to adhere to it because it is the practice. "The
power of each Court over its own process is unlimited; it is
a power incident to all Courts". See Cocker v. Tempest.(;’)
We are therefore of opinion that applications for
condonation of delay in filing petitions of appeal are
within the Chamber business under Order VI Rule 2(14).
V. P. S.
(1) 7 M & W 502.
10